 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Melgen v. Suarez, No. 3D05-1338,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the evidence and the reasonable inferences which could be drawn from the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the driver and car owner, supported the jury's verdict as the entitlement to past medical bills was vigorously contested at trial, the trial court erred in granting a JNOV and the jury's verdict was to be reinstated.
|
|||||
| Mendes v. Mendes, No. 4D05-279,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the former husband did not seek a reduction in alimony in lieu of termination in the trial court, he failed to preserve this claim for purposes of the appellate court's remand. While such an issue was within the trial court's jurisdiction under Reno, the former husband did not invoke that remedy.
|
|||||
| Mills v. State, No. 4D06-2927,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys. v. Azize, Case No. 2D05-4544,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in finding that the mortgage company could never be the proper plaintiff to bring the foreclosure action. As the holder of the note, the company had standing to seek enforcement of the note. Also, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.210(a), permitted the action to be prosecuted by the company acting for the lender, the real party in interest.
|
|||||
| Oasis v. Espinoza, No. 3D06-569,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an injured person's joint proposal for settlement to a driver and truck owner did not state the amount and terms attributable to each party as required by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3), it did not comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(3) and was invalid as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Ocwen Fin. Corp. v. Kidder, Nos. 4D05-2466 & 4D06-15,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment for employees was affirmed because the "send a message" closing argument by the employees was proper as the employees sought, but were not awarded, punitive damages. The employer also failed to preserve a new trial argument because the employer, which made objections to evidence, did not file a motion for a mistrial based on the evidence.
|
|||||
| Owens v. State, No. 4D05-2715,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of battery on a law enforcement officer and resisting an officer with violence were reversed for a new trial, because the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testify to the contents of a police dispatch indicating that defendant was resisting arrest, which were inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial.
|
|||||
| Pigg v. Balderson, Inc., CASE NO.: 1D06-2532,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, FIRST DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Rivera v. State, No. 3D06-2600,
COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, THIRD DISTRICT, February 21, 2007, Opinion Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a case where defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus was summarily denied by the trial court, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision because it was unable to determine the validity of defendant's claims where the trial court's summary denial was devoid of any record attachments.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
